were consistent with chinese rule block, which shows that it was no longer a zero sum gain. ..

device room the infrastructure and systems of a modern economy. we hope in the polls divide a system, banking regulators, antimonopoly law. we have a legal experts coming over telling them how to do budget. we did things the we frankly can't even discuss for ourselves, pension reform, but that's something else. a balanced budget. on a see bill sitting here. he is responsible for economic support from the monrad and the middle east post transition. he's using some of the tools we pioneered in central europe enterprise funds dick is also sending here and made the point in the clinton administration that the stability in the

country in the countries is going to depend on them getting the economy right. that was the first tool. the second tool was the strategic implications of the fall of the berlin wall and of the was the enlargement of the european union and nato which created the reality of the poll and helps stabilize these countries, stabilize the region in an unstable and uncertain time. that's where it succeeded where it failed former yugoslavia and other places is a different story. >> can we talk about that, we have both rwanda, 94, very different places and circumstances but i would like any of you to please address. i know that there has been a report on this fairly recently the was brought together on rwanda. >> let's talk about what we've

developed as tools from this experience. number one, international tribunals. the possibility that you could localize responsibility and a few key leaders. and milosevic went to the tribunal we didn't end of occupying belgrade, and it shows that there are other ways to respond to international criminal abuses. the second is the notion of diplomacy backed by force leading to a negotiation which is what holbrooke brilliantly did in dayton and in the third is the concept of atrocities prevention, which madeleine albright and bill cohen and others did was to bring this forward the president has now signed a directive on the prevention board for exactly the kind of early warning. and then finally, democracy building as a longer-term

antidote, the community of democracies and other kinds of devices. so, these were horrible the episodes but i think what it did is triggered structural change which is one of the hardest things to get in the human rights area. >> i agree with what herald said. i think that there's another factor here will probably is evolving that's evolved very fast and that international attention. in effect, rwanda was remote out of the way, not what tended to slow rolling in the public while it was rapidly filling in the disaster, so that i think all the things back. only a other hand, darfur had more press attention than it had peacekeeping capacity and add more early press attention which was complemented by a very elite deployment. so in fact, it wasn't a

sovereign answer, what was a piece of the puzzle that was necessary but entirely insufficient to make the process go ahead. there is the rule of the international year york or the ability should do things alone. to some extent, particularly in the clinton administration after somalia we were highly gun shy over participation ourselves in peacekeeping endeavors that evolves particularly the notion that we might have to use force for both good and bad reasons. and i think in the and darfur showed that we paid a pretty high price for that. when i was maybe too much but much too late if i could put it that way in some ways. but you're right, the evolution of the tools are still out there. it's still working. i think that what we lack the most is what i would call for site and preventive measures.

they require more courage and decisiveness and a good analysis and more ability to mobilize the and i think we currently at the international community have. it is i think in the paradigm the next direction to go because we are not cured. what is the curse in this century which harold put on the table very well the groups and ethnic violence that is now churning and will continue to churn. we have seen syria now -- >> i would like you to apply the tools you all been talking about. how do they apply today. look at the news this morning and in the past two weeks. a massacre after a massacre of children. we know the stories give it how to the tools apply? >> my sense is that we have not yet exhausted the tools short of the use of military force in

part because the russians and the chinese have blocked it. in part because the secretary blatantly last week tried to turn that into responsibility and accountability on the part of the russians for a bigger share of the disaster, and i think that needs to be done. it's made the russians very uncomfortable. they rushed to damascus to days after the veto to see whether in fact they could put in a fix the would cover. they support the plan, and i don't know what he's going to provide for the additions he's talked about, but the need to go there. but i think one of the things we need to think about with or without the u.n. is whether something like a koren team can put more pressur

we are now seeing in syria house-to-house, 121 killing of children and civilians that personalizes and makes it more clear the nature of the violation. the legal response, and tom frame one, the notion of a quarantine as opposed to a blockade was a legal concept developed in the cuban missile crisis and now being applied in various human-rights. but the concept began to arise in the post cold war period is the notion of responsibility to protect, which i think has three faces. when the country, whose citizens are being killed the government has abandoned its response to a buddy to protect who acquires a

responsibility to act, this is quite a step beyond what had happened before, which was it's one thing to say what a country does and a government does with its own citizens is not just its own business. it's another thing to say that somebody else has the responsibility to act. and the frame of kosovo called for multilateral responses. the kosovo episodes remains a highly controversial one both as a matter of law and in many circles although most of us are participated and felt that it

you had a security council resolution, the russians appear

to feel they were burnt and made clear they are not going to do anything like that for syria can react according to the kosovo model. there were times during the bush administration where the united states felt that acting alone or with a coalition they're willing itself constituted a quorum and that was proven insufficient. it does need to as an organization itself constitute a quorum of international legitimacy? if nato decides to act by consensus and by invitation of a regional organization the arab league, someplace else, does that constitute an issue of international legitimacy? how much weight do you give to the chinese and russian security council veto? i am not here to suggest an

answer. but the issue of international legitimacy for these kind of actions is an unsolved question and much debated. what we really have been happy if the consequences of not doing what we did in kosovo? we reversed ethnic cleansing. but. >> he's 100% right it's been a torturing problem. if you are a strict constructionist for the u.n. charter, then you are stuck with a veto, and in cases of genocide or actions that border on genocide is a curse we have never or if we ever had, never should have been in favor of not taking action in the security council to deal with cases of genocide. i don't see any plausible or politically viable effort to change. but we need to take our thinking a step beyond the notion that anybody that discusses the veto

and has the unmitigated and total protector of the united states interest above everything else needs to take a look at this conundrum that dan has so beautifully set forward and that is now to be devah less. and we should use the post cold war period to see whether we could get a voting convention in the united nations that in the cases of a veto unless three people objected to the text of the resolution. i understood it at that time even though there may have been a pleading moment when we could have persuaded people to do something like that. but this is the case that we face because the charter itself kind of rules out regional organizations that don't have the approval of the security council. ar to he has not suggested

another alternative and what we ought to begin to look at whether in fact there are international arrangements that we could arrive at where coalitions of the will then have some legitimacy in the international framework to deal with questions of genocide and other things whether it is a new treaty or set of arrangements it is a very hard course to run. but dan is right. i've been trouble with this for a long time. i've spoken about it, but we need to think about how to begin to deal with this because this is a big unsolved problems not just for human rights but u.s. special-interest. and i have to say security interest. if in fact human-rights violations have a gross sort are going to destabilize the international community internal strike than it is clearly a security question for us. >> she talked about the contact

with the people as opposed to the leaders and talks about paradigm shift from the end of the cold war in the national interest. can you name a particular turning point or specific turning points are moments it could have been made even more central to our national security interest in a way that people would have appreciated more have we missed the opportunity to link human rights to our national interest more clearly in previous incidences? you are smiling. >> i would take 1977, 35 years ago. when i attended the funeral vigil for, henry kissinger got up and told the following story that about two weeks after gerald ford became president and

everyone remembers the doubts about ford's capacity get that time. kissinger recounted that the russian see men jump off of a harbor and thought political asylum and kissinger recounted a meeting that he attended on which the winter of the table kissinger advised for to return them to the russians. he said are you kidding me this is america. we are not going to do that. it's proof of what a great president ford was for rejecting his advice. >> this is a moment because it also coincided legislative

activity. this continues to be very much on the forefront of our thinking what we do with this person seeking our support? this is america. this is what we do. it is a corporate of the nation that concedes itself as conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all persons are created equal. [applause] >> your time is up. >> thank you. [applause] speed i was supposed to tell him that he had an important engagement and had to leave early. go ahead.

>> tree is another episode from the ford administration. the famous dissident writer in exile in the united states wanted a meeting with the president and we went into an agony of in decisions agonizing whether or not we could cause such offense to brezhnev and the soviet union by receiving such a controversial anti-communist writer. there was the opposite of the story. i thought reading about the handling was the opposite. the real list of view into the traditional american foreign policy review of such incident was to haul him out of sight and out of the embassy, make the problem go away.

we should never make something like that our problem. the problem is for the government that represses human-rights to such a degree of an individual constitutes a national security problem. here's another story. from the 1980's poland friend of mine in the underground gets on and smuggles himself on a freighter across the baltics and in the middle of the baltic the ship starts to turn around are the on to me? yeah they are on to him then he turns off and goes far than the plants in sweden and the bureau is debating his fate and whether they should push back if the

bureau is discussing my miserable fate they are finished and he's telling me the stories while we're having a drink to celebrate the nado exception to nato and he was the minister of defense of poland. that's a story we should never put ourselves in the position where we had a nice about the trends of this world. make them agonize about the trends of this world. [applause] >> if you're ready to identify say between 75 to 82, which is where you have the helsinki process, the legislation five vote to be the congressman frazier and members of congress where you have the creation of

drl, the founding of human rights ngos, mike posner founded the lawyers committee in 1976 and the period that ended in 82 we have colleagues from india i -- ndi that started with the westminster speech and i think there was the pivot. from central europe where they are experiencing what means to experience free expression and not be put away for it. my question is can you translate what is happening with our policy to insert human rights more in foreign policy was that something for example talking

about having drinks with them is a tangible to them or is at go ahead and talk about this. islamic another cabinet member told me that in these when he was imprisoned the only people to ever see his family, the only foreigners with the embassy officers he said there were a lot of european countries that shunned my family because they didn't want to give or take the government and then he starts to laugh. so who's called you think i returned first? where our interests and our values coincided and does neatly all the time there are conflicts but we did get it right in

central europe both in the 80s and 90s and was a bipartisan. the result of our success was profound but it was also a generational issue. what we've succeeded in doing in central europe was making it possible for younger generation to grow up without the special feeling that the united states because they are normal europeans and that's okay, too. for the generation came through and that's a proud moment for all of us. i mentioned earlier bill tayler's task and the responding to the so-called arab spurring, arab awakening. some compared to 1989 and that

isn't the reality 1848. it will take a long time to strengthen come to get this straight and these countries will go through a very difficult period. but it's important that they be there and fall into what elliott called the exception list trap, democracy and human rights doesn't apply to those people that a autocracies good for them. we have to mean at. it doesn't mean that we get to avoid the problems. it doesn't mean if we give kosovo and it turned out reasonably well it doesn't mean that we have the answers for syria. >> or might i add north korea, day in and day out.

june 4th 1989 to things haven't won most human and square and one was the polish elections. >> it doesn't make the problem any easier, but the fact of the human rights democracy compound to the foreign policy means that at least we wrestle with these issues instead of crushing them away. i joined the foreign service in 1977 when this bureau was a few months old and i remember the enormous compensation committees kind of smearing dismissal in these days almost exclusively regarded human rights it wasn't serious. it was an irritant or distraction and it turned out to be the pivot around which the world changed in 1989 and that is a good lesson we always

russell with these problems. guantanamo to go back, it is not easy to deal with the problem of people you pick up on the battlefield. we have made a lot of mistakes as a government but it's not easy. the human rights and will fall guy in orientation won't make the problems he's year with at least you will be able to frame that the questions right. [applause] i do think that the private period that we've been talking about a central element was the

way in which these issues became bipartisan and is a continuity between what jimmy carter did and ronald reagan carried down this wall and american leaders have the capacity to put things on to the agenda by saying the on sable. hillary clinton and the first lady went to the beijing conference which is supposed to be an event to basically the ngos stick out and some remote location and hillary clinton's speech women's rights are human rights and her link to be when the secretary of state last year goes to geneva to the human rights council, with my posner

and says lgbt rights are human rights and it has an enormous resonance and it made it very difficult for people in the room who had successfully kept that message for being said aloud by a prominent leader to the state of affairs continue and changed to the dynamic altogether. >> i was in burma, the ambassador was an amazing moment to witness to go to china fought like burma was doing this and china was doing this. but in burma something dramatic is happened in the past years. one had been in prison for 17 years for handing out pamphlets. my question for you is are

those, can your pocket the mechanisms that had with the state has done or the mechanisms can your pocket because those people are moving forward on a interview to many of them to not believe that. >> i think that if it, the geographic pivot is from the dissidents of europe to asia let's take where we are. we just heard from tex and others about a friend of my own father. the assistant secretary for human rights the president the younger is here today at the state department this development what i would go out asians don't believe in human rights did i find a great moment

because -- [laughter] >> there's extraordinary development in burma which need to be supported with extraordinary vigor and care. show to me this basic martin luther king message which is about the ark of history turning towards justice. it takes a while but it does. >> americans want to put it very well. we just don't. it's not our nature. democrats to try to be realists and but not something quite

sincere. our identity is to ideals we are. literally. they don't say descendants of english colonists and the colony's have created equal to british subjects. human rights policies and american policy fits our deepest identity aspirations for ourselves and that's one part and the other part is it's hard to make it work. it's great to see that and it didn't help and syria. it doesn't help figuring out how to you with -- deal with egypt, the islamist party which way

will they go. but translating the ideals and to daily politics and false trade-offs that's why we all have to be realistic with a small r but not elevated to a doctrine with a big r because that just degenerates. what we can accomplish in any country in any year and the defense don't happen according to the timeline of a two-year tour of office or the four or eight here are the ministration. it happens decades ago by and nothing happens. there is no answer to that. except deal every day with these

problems and be realistic about what you accomplish but also the root world really can change. it's not quixotic. it really can happen. >> i just found out i have a little more time and i'm going to make my own point if you will forgive me because i have more time which is i think that we can't always denied you mentioned kosovo. the other difference is the media. we can count on one hand how many people have gotten into north korea and told from inside for the free world. we know what's happening there, but my point to you is the power of the media and by point there is i'm here to castigate the media.

they are not doing this for a news for americans and international news keeping these things on the front burner because you keep talking about this all began congress there has to be some political will besides behind what we do. not having covered news at the beginning of my career as a kid basically i am being told more and more in my leader years you don't want to go overseas no one is going to pay to cover the news. something's happening that's very bad for security interest if we are trying to eliminate human rights and what's happening at number three is the best example of its trade far more could be done to cover these stories. it's tough for you, and you're still trying to do it. my point is why doesn't the american media rise to the stories that are hard to cover. my second question is it went from being out on the brummer according to elliott abrams to begin on the burner why? is that the ground up affect?

the arab spring is where we are now. it's true the bush administration had a freedom agenda, but it was compromised by other problems the bush and administration accumulated. this added ministration encumbered by far fewer of those problems has greater latitude and that's a wonderful opportunity for us and the secretary has seized, but will be a long process. >> let me just say about korea because i and a korean-american, my late father said there were two things he wanted to see one with the red sox and independent and they did that twice. but the other was in his lifetime to see the

reunification of korea. there's been times i wonder whether i will see that in my lifetime, but in october 2000, i had the opportunity to go with secretarial right to north korea. in a moment that really struck me was flying out of north korea which is a country that can achieve its people which has no electricity in the dark and then 30 minutes away seeing the likes of seoul and realizing these are the same people. the only difference is democracy and human rights and look what is accomplished and the difference between the wellbeing of the people in one place and another and they gave me some sense the bright lights of the freedom is an unsustainable situation over the long term for people to live in that kind of

darkness. [applause] we are going to move on to the next panel if you'll stay with us. thank you so much. we could go on. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> welcome again, everyone. this is going to take us from this, i think we will end up covering a lot more than not, but this conversation is going to begin with 2001, 9/11 through the arab spring and even beyond now. i want to begin kyl gibson. you have programs by the way that give a longer and better biography on all of our great guests. i'm going to introduce with the current assistant secretary for drl currently, mike posner. [applause] i would also like to introduce more than craner running as the assistant secretary for drl from 2001 to 2004. [applause] we have paul growth who is the

minority clerk for lindsey graham, and next to -- you have much longer biographies next to paul you have tim rieser who is the majority clerk for patrick leahy on foreign operations and we want to dive right in wittes now running at the brookings which is very much powerful think tank on the middle east. what's dive right in. it's 2001. i actually remember being involved in an event in the spring of 2001 on what next foreign policy actually has a lot of interesting intellectual -- i wish you had been in and we were talking about what the next crisis might be in the spring of

2001 and anything approaching what was happening and what was about to happen on 9/11. on 9/11 you find yourself here running drl, and what does this mean for your priorities or becomes your primary challenge? >> let me speak to you for organizing this conference. let's have a round of applause. [applause] i met a friend of pat's at a dinner and it was as if i read a movie star or something because the work of the bureau since it's the gun was tremendously important. those of us that held the position in the brotherhood or sister who i think all of last -- there may be things we disagree on but it's a very

tough job and so i'm always full of respect and adoration and i want to thank might again for organizing this. mine nell irvin changed everything. i was telling heil that i was watching one of i on my tv on the assistant secretary's office and you have to give you haven't been there the assistant secretary's office looks down the potomac you can see all of the national airport and the pentagon and i'm watching the redo that morning of the planes crashing into the world trade center and i start seeing the smoke come from the pentagon and i thought this is a terrible day to have a crash on a helicopter pad because that's the side that it was on and it took me about half a second to realize what happened that morning. i have spent the previous this summer working on a conference against racism, which some of you remember as a disastrous.

some of you will remember that very well. on the eighth of september. succumb on tuesday come 9/11, i was sitting in the secretary's staff meeting wondering why had joined the state department. i joined personally because of colin powell, and in my interview i have for the job and the degree, 2011, i mentioned a couple things. working on human rights in china, but also working on human rights and democracy in the middle east. so that summer, the summer of 2001, he said start working with bill burns and ryan crocker, the assistant secretary and ryan and i had known them from my federation here before. so we were already working together on some new things to be doing in the middle east before 9/11. i remember right after 9/11 there was a lot of talk from across the river from the pentagon about draining the

slump swamp and those that had gotten into the position debate the business knew for a long time that wasn't going to be sufficient. there we would spend the rest of our lives killing of individuals one by one. so i rode and outside the system memo in the archives saying that this was an insufficient strategy and i had in mind some of what had been done during the cold war that as the cold war we had to offer an alternative, and i always do credit the beginning of that to jimmy carter and also to ronald reagan. i was just up the library. i gave a talk in october at the heritage foundation about how we were going to have to emphasize this but it was clear in the building. so it was obvious that there was going to be some effort. there was effort at that time obviously to get rid of this issue but it was also obvious from having it here and i talked to powell and our message before delivering it.

where i said it's even going to be more important to work on these issues. i wasn't here before to hear eliot's speech but has always was critical in this and i think the most momentous and important thing was president bush in this era was president bush's state of the union in 2002 and he gave a little notice in the end where he talked about the non-negotiable demand human dignity that we were going to push them including in the muslim world, and that was a really important signal within the bureaucracy to start pursuing. we then had a lot of help from the capitol hill. there were increases in funding after 9/11 in particular including for the middle east. it's a didn't come to exist until 2003 so in those early two years we were able to use that funding to really begin some of the work in the middle east and obviously we were working on other issues. i mentioned china, central asia,

the muslim world in general. but 9/11 really gave an early focus and really enabled us to begin working. i saw jeane kirkpatrick who used to be on the board and this was some years before she died but i remembered going to see her and she said what's different over there? this was early o2. i said finally, the middle east is open for business and she said that's a huge. if in in my day under reagan it wasn't open for business. so it gave a focus. we've never been able to move on the middle east before. and i think it's true and we will get into this leader we've made mistakes in the bush ad fenestration. but it can't be a coincidence things finally started to move in the middle east. it's in the political will created by 9/11 and two

different directions, now it's about us in a different way and what that does to human-rights perhaps overseas and also the new legislation here at home that some invasion of privacy geared towards accelerate the ability to track down terrorists at home because these people had been inside the united states. can i ask others of you that have come from capitol hill to talk about how my and 11 vv chris -- 9/11 and this issue we were discussing in this context of the human rights context. it's one of the things i will be looking for to win nine in the minority.

>> you're welcome. [laughter] >> i guess i would respond this way. i think that one of the things we've learned about the congress is that it has a way of overreacting to almost everything that happens. it's a very reactive institution , and when bad things happen, it tends to sort of shift into overdrive, and religiously in ways in retrospect often cause more problems than they solve and we then spend years or more trying to find our way back to a reasonable point that if more caution had been taken at the outset, we could have gotten too little year. i think what happened after 9/11 is an example of that. and for the most part, that much of what was done while well

intentioned and understandable was in typical to human rights and to the principles of democracy and we are trying to find a balance that addresses the legitimate concerns that 9/11 focused our attention on and at the same time, protect the most important values and rights that distinguish us in many ways from those who attack us and i think that's still a big work in progress. we are clearly not there yet. it's a struggle every day within the congress. there are diametrically different views, different priorities and i worked for senator leahy soon he has won perspective and i can only speak

from that perspective. his view is we are still at a point where our own rights and principles are being challenged by some of the very actions we've taken ourselves and in the end that makes us week, not strong. so i think that's at least hollywood began. >> you want to weigh in on this? >> a disclaimer which is the views expressed are entirely my own and don't reflect that of the committee or anybody on the committee. i want to talk about democracy and the funding aspect of democracy. asked indicated everybody had one eye on the tv and what do we do about this, how we approach it? and i think in terms of the response consistently since that time, they're has been emphasis on democracy promotion and human rights promotion in the

subcommittee bill, a bipartisan recognition that is not enough to bring this one up, the recognition that the rule of law books of government, political competition from

i think eliot is correct in

saying that as a matter of u.s. policy the priority in the middle east over a number of years was strategic cooperation with governments who were not respecting. i think both under the bush administration and under the obama administration that shifted, and shifted fundamentally i think yes because the shock effect of 9/11 which created an opportunity, but more particularly, it shifted because of changes taking place on the ground in the region, and let me be very clear, someone that spent a career on the democracy mittal writes that the human rights policy specialists and as a regional specialist tracking the politics over the last 15 or 20 years, you could see the trends building. you could see the impact of the youth on rising social economic and political expectations in the region you could see the

breakdown of the model where autocrats could descend effectively. you could see the impact of global trends in democracy and the communications revolution on the perception in the middle east. so all that was creating a very volatile mix. was al qaeda one outcome of that volatile mix? that is a complex problem with a lot of variables, but what i would certainly say is people in the region were and are reaching for dignity, and there are different political launch the nurse if he will arguing for how that dignity can be achieved, and al qaeda and ayman al-zawahiri were among those saying you get dignity through resistance, through confrontation and violence. as a tremendous opportunity presented to the region to us to

the world by the arab awakening is a counter narrative that comes from within the middle east itself that says no, the way to dignity is through peaceful participation and politics, and that is a big part of what is at stake in the region. >> i'm going to give you a chance in a second but i want to ask a quick question. didn't sharon log on the mount? >> so you have this palestinian issue, which the u.s. has seen right or wrong to be not fixing. i've been in the first in '88, and here we are in 2000. talk about deja vu all over again. so, i do want to continue. someone asked that you address the human rights palestinians over the arc from 9/11 to the day which i'm going to ask you to do you can address it now or later if you liked. did you want to say something on that now? >> if we are moving.

i guess what i would say is that whether you are talking there at the human rights of palestinians in the context of the ongoing conflict or the human rights citizens elsewhere in the region in the context of the struggle to defeat terrorist threats both in the region and those directed here at home, it comes back to something the was a topic of significant discussion this morning which is the integration of human rights in the u.s. foreign policy. it's not a stand-alone issue you cannot treat it as a stand-alone issue it has to be integrated into your overall strategy, and it is integrated through the recognition that the secretary articulated that only through the encouragement of a more rights respected environment that allows political participation and environment that creates public accountability for governments that there's lasting stability

and security that is the basis for reliable partnerships by the united states whether it is in the middle east or anywhere else in the world. similarly you could say in the case that not only do the incidence of human rights abuses complicates the negotiating environment and undermine trust between the parties on the ground, but it's also difficult to envision a lasting negotiated peace that is not accompanied by a respect for human rights on both sides and so if you're smart about it you're going to build that into the the negotiating that you're doing every day. >> at that point the human rights was 4-years-old at that point. >> 1978. stat i'm sorry, 1978. where did you see this in the human rights shift since it's been your cause and life?

>> you're talking about -- >> i was actually in new york on 9/11 and saw one of the tower's fault, so it was a transformational moment i think for the human rights community. we got back and i remember on september 10th meeting with the staff having just part of a very contentious and disturbing meeting and saying i don't know quite how the world is different and we are going to have challenges ahead. i would see no idea the was coming but i think we all recognize all of our work was going to be fundamentally different. the one thing i would say from our ngo perspective is that we are very long and full of the challenges posed by some of the legislation and some of the things to him and you all have talked about as secretary clinton said often we need to

lead by example, and some of the things that happened particularly the detention policy and some of the issues around guantanamo made it harder for the u.s. to be a leader and as an ngo, those are issues that we focused on and one of the reasons frankly that i can to this administration was the president's declaration on the second data we would treat prisoners humane and address detention issues including guantanamo. and i'm proud to be part of an administration that takes the view that there is no such thing as a wall free zone that people are subject to legal protection wherever they are and what circumstance. as said, we still have a long way to go. but i think those issues are going to be with us for a while and we need to find a bipartisan way to address them going forward to be stronger internationally as well. >> as we go to war and put boots on the ground in afghanistan and iraq, how much does that -- i

want to get in policy for a moment but one is a perception around the world. how much harder is that if the running theme today has been the u.s. for human rights is an example of a shining light i read a million different variations on this tour all incredibly important. but now we have afghanistan which is one thing, afghanistan, 2001 and then iraq, 2003. my question to you is simply hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground in these countries, how much more vigilant does that present when we are trying to present a result as a beacon for human rights both for good and bad? any one of you does any one of you want to address that? ..

we had funded for $750,000 a new printing press, and the previous -- the only printing press previously had been run by the president's son-in-law, so on certain days newspapers didn't get printed. and we were going to cut the ribbon on it, beth and i, and went to the ceremony at the university, and the ambassador, our ambassador there said to us at the time they're going to hammer you on palestine, iraq,

afghanistan, et cetera, et cetera. and we walked in the room and we never got a question on palestine or iraq or afghanistan. all people wanted to know about is, why are you doing this? this is an ally of the u.s. but i walked out as we were walking out and said to beth, we could have spent millions of dollars on some public relations campaign in this country. instead we're spending $507,000 on this printing press and that's what people wanted to talk about. what i found out in those years, what we were doing in iraq and afghanistan and the detention policies, were a big issue with our allies. it was always on the agenda in europe. many dictators attempted to make it a big issue, but i also found that if -- i actually did this once straight out to a chinese dip plot. he brought up detention policies and torture.

i said in my country these are not policy, they're anomalies. i said in your country, it's a matter of course, been going on for decade with the ascent of your leadership. so i said there's no compare son between our two countries. and that was the end of that. what was most interesting to me was i never had a dissident say to me, i'm not going to take your assistance because of guantanamo or not going to take your assistance because you invaded iraq or afghanistan. so i'm not saying i think those policies were perfect, and i think tim has put it very, very well, about how the pendulum swung this way right after 9/11, and started to swing back. but i think it is important to look at the different audiences that you're addressing, and i'm sure some in the current administration, with now the lots of commentary in the press about this, is facing some of the same issues. i think it's important to divide

it into different audiences and realize how to treat each different audience and try to modify our policies. don't let dictators throw it in your face, throw it back in theirs and realize that dissidents aren't going to care. >> i want to say something on this. number one, i would argue in -- and maybe this is more in my nongovernmental life before i came to the state department when you were here and i was brookings, and maybe dissidents speak different to officials but i certainly heard about guantanamo and abu ghraib and palestine from dissidents in region but the message i heard was we want you've to live up to your own ideas and rhetoric. it wasn't it undermined their belief in our vales but they thought we weren't doing a good enough job and they wanted to us measure up.

the second thing i wanted to note, was at a conference for brookings in march of 2004. it was very, very tense time. we had -- we were in iraq. things were not going well. abu ghraib had broken, and i think it was march. it was the week that donald rumsfeld was on the hill answering questions about abu ghraib. people were angry at the united states. but we actually had trouble getting them into the session of the conference because they were watching the abu ghraib hearings in their hotel rooms. they were fascinated by the fact our defense secretary was getting hauled up on the hill to face this questioning, and as bad as that series of events was the fact that we could demonstrate instant and serious accountability for our public officials, i think was really

important. >> did you want to -- >> yes. just to echo, one of the things i feel really proud about that we have done in the last couple of years is to befringeright but in a nonreceivessive way about our own domestic system. we in the fall of 2010, harold and i and esther were in geneva for the first iteration of the universal periodic review. every country now under a new u.n. procedure has to evaluate its own performance and come before the human rights council and describe it, and in anticipation of that we held a dozen sessions with ngos of various stripes, dealing with border issues, with race discrimination, national security, we had close to 1,000 people participate. what was great about the session was that we came there better prepared probably than any

government, with more ngos following along with, ready to be critical and in some case give us praise. we had a town hall for ng os to talk to us, and we set a standard, and i said we want to lead by example, that's what i mean. so it's possible for us to be both self-critical, as we are, but it's also something the world looks at and they go, my god, how many of the people that are standing up to criticize us have anything approaching what we have in terms of a lively public donate their own countries -- lively public debate. and people see these are issues we don't shy away from and that's part of why we can lead in trying to address these issues around the world. >> let me ask -- this is perhaps a truly naive question but i'm going to ask it, like many of my questions. and ask it to those of you from the hill. that's the political process running up against owning what we do and taking responsibility for what goes wrong.

you talked about mistakes and i want to hear about those. but we're in an election year where you often see -- i remember this from early reagan days, the new shining city on a hill and people thought allowed him to be elected -- the first time after jimmy carter, where carter was owning mistakes, one might say, particularly domestically, but my question for those who -- the two of you who have come to us from capitol hill, is about political will when we want to hold ourselves accountable with american people. do you think -- i get why the rest of the world is digging it. but what does that do for you bosses who have to face re-election, frankly? >> i actually don't think we're very good at holding ourselves accountable. i mean, we're good at what has been described -- and i really agree with what warren outlined just in terms of the come

complexities of this and the fact that how people perceive us is really a function of a long tradition and vairs depending on where you are and who they and are there's an expectation that we are going to live up to the values we profess to believe in, and that we're going to lead by example and all that. but generally, while i do think that we're good about hauling members of the administration up to be questioned and all of that, ultimately we don't seem to be very good at actually holding anybody accountable for anything, with the exception of in some cases fairly low level people. and it also seems to me that we don't learn a whole lot from our mistakes. we have a remarkable able to

repeat them. and so while some things have changed since the original reaction to 9/11, i don't think that much has changed in fact. not nearly as much as what we would have anticipated or some of us hoped for. and we're still, as a result, struggling with this, and while i think it's true that most people are concerned that we -- they want us to live up to the values we set for ourselves as was mentioned. they really look to us for that. it has made it more difficult for us. i know that in my own conversations with whether it's ngos or foreign officials, these issues come up a lot and i have to continually say the fact that certain things happen on the part of our own government means we agree with them.

we have differences within our own government and we certainly express those differences and just as we have concerns about the way your government treats its people, don't always agree with the way our government does. but it has definitely made it more difficult for us in terms of our own credibility and the example that we would like to set in our foreign policy. and at the same time, it has, i think, compelled us in a very bipartisan way to find as many opportunities as we can to support people in these countries who are working for democracy and human rights, whether it's through organizations like lauren's or other's. we see this as hugely imimportant and a way we -- despite the policies we have that may seem contradictory, that we can support those principles through people in these countries that are often risking their lives.

>> tim, -- paul, before you continue, tim, you with center leahy designed a lie that prohibit the u.s. military from training soldiers who have been involved in human rights abuses. is that right? die have that right? >> that's close. >> close enough? >> it's -- what it says is that if the secretary of state has credible information that a unit of a foreign security force has committed a gross violation of human rights, then that unit is no longer eligible for u.s. assistance, whether it's training or equipment or other types of assistance, unless the government is taking effective steps to hold the individual members of that unit accountable for whatever the violation was. >> when was that passed? >> initially in 1997. >> really. has it been effective? >> that's a long conversation.

>> all right. >> certainly steve could talk at great length on that subject. >> i'd love to know. >> it has, i think, been hugely important. it has become institutionalized and part of the workings of this building and our embassies around the world. it's been applied, i think in a very uneven manner, depending on the country, depending on the circumstances, and it's a constant work in progress. but i do think that this administration particularly has taken significant steps to better define the policies and practices that underlie this law, which i think everyone agrees is -- has real benefits for the united states and for our relations with other countries. but it is very much a work in progress. >> i would love to know how i applies to bahrain, for example. paul do you want to address -- >> i want to say maybe two

observations. first of all, our system was designed to be messy. it was not designed to be predictable. if you want a predictablesive you have author tearon government. so we will make mistakes but we remain the best. we can beat ourselves up over bad decisions and we certainly do. but the end of the day, the people i worked with for eight years, the issues that they had with the united states were not related to the major issues in the newspaper. frankly it was related to aid is cutting our funding weapon can't get the ambassador to speak up on these issues. these parochial issues. not major issues. oil not saying they don't effect it. the chinese love it when we make mistakes. we need to be smarter how we approach things no question, but our system only government was designed to be exactly what is happening today, and we can't lose sight of that if we want a

different government with predictability, be careful what you ask for. >> lauren, did you had have something to say on this? >> i think what paul said is really, really important. i often found people in those years, when we would -- when i would raise the subject, would say, look, you've made mistakes over many, many decade, everything from watergate and cia scandals to the present day. they say, what we find interesting is your institutions. in 2000, others say you're not going to be able to talk about democracy overseas, in your elections you have these hanging chad disputes and the thing ended up in the supreme court. i was a little sheepish around the folks we were helping, and then they would bring it up, and i would think, oh, god. and they said, that's all we want in our country they said in your country there's no tanks in

the streets, no shooting from inside the white house to outside the white house. it's all calm. it's end up with your supreme court and the decision will be accept bid both candidates and they said that's all we want in our country. so there are certainly, as i've said, mistakes that have been made in every administration on security issues, et cetera, and i clearly there's a need, as item started off saying, for the pendulum to swing back, but i think there's only so much self-national laying we aught to do and there's a lot of people around the world that would simply like a system that is his predictable at that time the one they have. >> i want to get into the arab spring. tamara, i wanted to ask you, there was something specific you wanted to talk about with regard to arab spring.

>> thank you. the egypt ngo situation, when the ngos were held in court -- talk about it for a minute. >> and we can't speak about it in the past tense. okay? unfortunately. you know, it was something i thought was worth addressing in particular, partly because the way in which the state department and the administration partnered with civil society in the middle east is i think illustrative of development here in drl and in the way we do democracy diplomacy and also to address a narrow issue. so let me start by making note of what secretary clinton and mike posner have done on this issue of partnership with civil society, that the secretary's really launched a global agenda on freedom of association that i think is going to be a lasting legacy for the united states

abroad. and both in articulating why civil society is important, what role it plays in free societies, and also setting up mechanisms to support human rights organizations that are under threat and new ways to partner with organizations in an ongoing manner. and -- but what that meant is that in the years even before the arab spring began, we were expanding our partnerships, and it was also the pirate speech and president obama's commitment to build relationships people-to-people, and that meant that people in my bureau in nea, all the embassies were tasked with expanding relationships and reaching out to civil society. and so when things started to happen on the ground, we had relationships, partners, we had sources of information, even when our embassy officers were stuck inside because of protests and security reasons and

couldn't get out to see what was going on. that's how important from the diplomacy side that we have beard -- broader sources of information that affects our analysis and policy formation. as we look ahead to what is happening in the arab world now, in these states in transition, that are writing knew rules for politics and building new institution, when we think about societies still struggling for freedom, i think it's important to emphasize the critical role that civil society going forward. we're at a moment in the arab awakening where there's a lot of anxiety in washington about what is happening. is this the arab winter? and if we're anxious about athor tearan relapse or anxious about the commitment of the electoral victors in these countries to

democracy, if we're anxious about majorityism overriding human rights, who is going to help ensure that those don't take place. whose going to promote public accountability for new institutions? who is going to promote the values of dialogue and compromise? civil society. that what civil society does. before the egyptian revolution it was civil society organizations who uncovered the truth behind the death of said, the anniversary which we marked this week, and since the revolution, and civil society organizations in egypt that got a court ruling against military trials of civilians. so if we are serious about the fundamental policy insights that i think you've heard from so many people today that lasting stability in the region is going to require a thorough change to government that is marked by

accountability, then we have to recognize the central role of civil society in making that possible, and i think part of what i hear right now, in the wake of this crisis, in u.s. egyptian relations over our funding of ngos, is a sense that this is about us. it's not about us. it's about what is happening in egypt. it's about a struggle for power on the ground in cairo, and an attempt to sideline a sector oegyptian society that is working for accountability, and, you know, i also hear people saying these groups are not popular. they're not winning majorities in the elections. look at our own ngos. our own ngos do not have millions and millions of members. they have thousands, or if they're lucky a few hundred thousands and these groups are marginal but critical. >> i don't think the women or marginal and i met a lot of the

women this week and have talked to so many women in the middle east who came to women in the world, and they are so terribly frustrated, saying we marched for this, got hit for that's and attacked for this, and when it comes down to writing constitution or politics, we're out. i talked to an egyptian about this last night and she talked about, with that the cultural problem of discrimination against women anyway, and so many of these countries, but it's the ultimate human rights question for women. they are not safe, and i was in yemen with secretary clinton last year and stayed, and what women go through in yemen is -- the media failed there. i got into this the last round. it is slavery. and women in so many countries now are just literally enslaved. so my question for you is, you can talk about ngos being majorrallized but we have this culture problem we can't

top-down address, even as wonderful as the drl has been? what can drl do -- what do you do other than watch hillary clinton -- i was there for the town hall with hillary clinton and it will make history one day. not enough people saw it. she had this town hall and it turned out to be just ten days before they started marching but they -- at first they were challenging her saying, what are you going to do to support us on human right. she said, you do and it i support you. what are you -- we want reform. she said, you're right. and i support you. it was raucous. butmy manipulate was a few days later i'm in yemen and she is gone and i meet women who were forced into major at four or five six years and they said, we're property. and so all i'm asking you, an institution like drl, with cultural particularly, what are the mechanisms? >> it's a huge and important question and one of the things

that dan said on the last panel i think needs to be repeat over and over again, we have to be clear about our values, clear about our long-term somes and we have to hold our anybody in terms of exacting change. we had panels this morning talking about latin america. latin american change didn't occur overnight. it occurred because civil society grew, many of them tried the catholic church. built up a constituency that basically challenged governments that were behaving badly. we heard on the last panel about what happened throughout eastern europe and the soviet union, working with the dissident community for years everybody ignored and people thought it was fool's errand. so in the middle east we're in the early stage of imperfect

political transitions. women and other vulnerable groups are clearly marginalizedded you hear from women all the time, we were standing on the streets, arm in arm, and when the political process starts, we're ignored. and so the question of political empowerment of women is a critical piece of building sustainable democracies in the middle east. we're not going to make it happen alone but we have to be pushing for it. [applause] >> i think the work that tammy did, the work we're trying to do, is a piece of it but we start from the premise, these are not our revolutions. they're led by people in egypt and libya, where i was last week in bahrain, people are going to demand change and demand dignity and we have to imply identify they're -- amplify their voices. we do it all the time.

we can protect them when they get trouble. >> we didn't protect bahrain. >> no. the truth is we spend lot of time -- everybody in these positions knows that we spend a lot of time, so much out of the headlines, dealing with individuals who are on the firing line, who get in trouble, secretary clinton routinely meets with civil society rupees and we constantly raise individual cases. sometimes it takes a year. sometimes we struggle on and on. but that is part of the mandate. part of the enterprise. >> help me understand libya verse syria. mike, i'll put you on the hot seat right now. >> i spend a lot of time there. >> let's just get to syria. loren you wanted to say something about this. it is -- everyone i look to, we all grew up having our parents say, never again, never again, look at syria today, mike.

>> we can and do on a daily basis, both denounce the atrocities, the outrages of the assad government. we have said and will continue to say he lost at the disporous faith of his own people and he has to be replaced. those are the -- that's in a way the simple part. we can all agree that it's a completely outrageous situation that has to change. as you heard from tom pickerring and others in the previous panel, trying to figure out how to get there is more complicated. libya was a country divided geographically, where a combination of the arab league and the security council of the united nations provided a basis for us to participate in a flo-fly zone, which helped libbans take the part of the country that wasn't under their control. syria is a different opposition, it's different geography, the

politics are different. that does not mean we are not resolute in trying to too what needs to be done. we're ramping up sanctions. we're working with the friends of syria. we're supporting the aunanimous plan, although frankly the monitors themselves are being attacked. we're looking at a transitional plan. we're putting pressure to the extent we can on the russians and the chinese, but they are not on our side on this. so, let's be honest about where we are. we're in a very dire situation. the people of syria -- again, mostly women and children-are being attacked every day by government forces in in a way that's unconscionable and we're deemed change that but the pathway forward depends not just on us but on other actors. >> loren, how much has this changed since you were here? we talk about burma. but burma has gone the other direction in the past year.

how much has changed since the drl -- >> i think dan put it well. the tough job in this building is judging what i used to call the primary job of the united states government, which is to protect the american people versus the issue. the issues of idealism that we have all dedicated our lives to, and it's how you panel them off and that's what drl is doing. >> haven't we learned they're the same? isn't that what we were talking about all morning? dan said they're not always the same, but that they are more the same -- human rights is in the national security interests, is it not? >> i don't think there's any question. i've worked here under secretary baker, under bush 41. it was a different time in terms of consideration of human rights issues. it was not as prominent an issue, and you have had a bipartisan series of secretaries of state, madeline albright, colin powell, secretary rise,

secretary clinton, who care deeply about these issues and there's no question in any mind -- i found the culture very, very different on these issues when i came back in '01 than when i left in 1992. and the fact that you have secretaries of state who are saying, yes, these issues are important to the building, you need to pay attention to them, then you start seeing what tamara was talking about, where -- i don't think in dick's time there were too many embassies that were going out talking to civil society groups. it was a very, very tough slog, and sore time the culture has changed. unfortunately it's not always the case that our national security interests are identical. ...

>> at the caucus meeting following the day, i raised the

issue of what we are going to do about syria. the response was zero. zero. nobody paid attention. this is all the europeans and the canadians, australians, nothing. no response. then i kept pushing it and, if i may say so, a few days later i got the word from nea, stop it. >> i think that is pointing out something really important. i think the culture of the world has changed. that in those days come when you had a few dozen democracies out of 160 some countries, it was acceptable to be part of the club. it was a little distasteful to deal with you, but it was okay. it is not okay anymore. and i think this is why, you

know, a country like burma against open up. they realize that we are just not part of the 21st century if we are governing our people and treating our people like this. ultimately, i think that is going to have a lot of import. in terms of what is going on in china. obviously, technology is a part of that ,-com,-com ma people are able to see easily now than they could 30 years ago. inside our country, it isn't normal. most countries are democratic. >> i would love to get into that with any of you. i want to jump in on the role of new technologies. it didn't work for the green revolution in iran. it did a different moment, but it certainly hasn't. it seems to work in egypt. we have traced that, and tomorrow, any view, why don't you tell me. mike, i know you have a lot of thoughts on new technology and the new media edge. >> when you say so, i think that our view has been always the

technology doesn't cause revolutions or social change. people do. but it does aid them. our premises has been over the last several years, and paul and tim have been incredibly helpful and supportive, that we really ought to be approaching these internet issues from the perspective of reinforcing traditional human rights standards. this is about free speech, free simile, free association. it is creating an open space for activists to use new technologies to advance their causes. part of what we have learned over time that it is not just about opening up the space and creating less constraints as there aren't places like iran or china. but it is also about protecting people use these new technologies, who really don't have a sense of some of the risk associated. a lot of the support we have gotten from congress has gone to really reinforce the need for

training and support for activists, so that there is a voice for democracy and are equipped with tools that are safe and effective. it is transformational, but you have to take where they are and recognize you are empowering their voice, the voices are to their. >> let me ask you. lorne, you were in burma. everyone has been their best when i went a few weeks ago, everyone says i have just been to burma. my question to you on that, lorne, we were talking about there are no cell phones or cell phone towers. they were all working in the political realm, these women, on facebook, representing the .002% on facebook. my question to you is, or any view, is this pastor with burma, we have seen a profound change that i have two we have a lot to

do with how the state department estimates. it happened without technology. >> is exactly what mike said. i remember that i had somebody say to me that i ought to honor the founder of facebook. and i was like, why? and they said it was so important in regards to the revolutions per then i said what mike said, this isn't about facebook and twitter that it is about the fire in people's hearts. that fire can be expressed through facebook and twitter and it can be amplified through facebook and twitter, but facebook and twitter are no more responsible for the arab spring then the machine was in the 1980s. it is a mechanism and a useful mechanism. but it is not the answer. that is why, i think, lots of technology, no revolution. it all depends about how it's used.

>> he said if the going to be impossible for china to london is much longer because of technology. they just don't have the ability to close a country the way they once did. >> yes, i do agree. it is catalytic. it is not the cause of the revolution. two just on that final since, i think the point is that people have access to information now, but they cannot monopolize their sense of how their country is doing and how it compares to the rest of the world. and i think that was, in fact, a primary impact of technology in the arab world and i think he will be in china as well. people in egypt could see that the countries their governments have kept telling them where their peers, indian and indonesian, or zooming ahead of more stuff. >> someone who has worked on burma for the past 15 years, i just want to make a couple of observations. first off, we really don't know

what is going on there. it is transracial in some senses, but we don't know how this ends. >> will we not know until the 2016 election? the next elections? >> i think the next elections will be a good indication, as i say, look at the factors that have changed over time for the month under pressure now, more pressure, what about the political prisoners that have been released. we need to be very careful in how we describe what has happened. the burmese and the people of burma don't need facebook were cell phones for them to be inspired to go against the regime. this is a regime that had a boot on their necks for very long time. anybody who has been to the border, and the iri has worked with them, we have some of the older students that are still out there. >> right. >> and they still work for the day when they can go back.

>> what has been the turning point as your? why this year? why this pastor? we are suggesting it has more to do with china. >> copulation is certainly -- would you have but that i see happening in burma is that you have a regulation in the rest of the country of the leaders saying that the world matters. our position in the world manners matters and position of the region matters. so they have gone from a consulate and led desk with somebody who pop their head up and said, oh, my god, the rest of the world is out there. we are behind the curve. so i think that is one of the bidders for this issue of technology. what it can do in burma would be interesting as it opens up. the programs that we run, doa,

our radio free asia. let's not forget that that is what we also use reach out. anyone who knows that the folks in the region listen to that. we have other means that we have been using. >> i don't know where we are in this, but so much has changed, mike, since 2001. in terms of what this does. lorne brought in programming and i had him explain programming a bit. which, i get it. it is more than just a report anymore. you are going to put some notion into what human rights is. let me just read you desperate disabilities of labor, religious freedom, internet freedom, civil society, lgb tea, you are really busy. what is business and human rights? that is interesting to me. tell me about the new deal with my poster? >> it is evolving and i think as

was said this morning, i will constantly need to evolve and we just need to keep up the fight what is important, i think, we do leave bleak as you suggest and they are part of the vision impaired vision from the secretary and president now is when we talk about democracy, we talk about human rights. we recognize that it is a process. the building blocks are empowering women and having the rule of law and having accountability and transparency. breaking civil society, supporting horrible groups. women, children, the lbgt community. judy human is a special advisor.

barbara schirmer she is a critical piece of the agenda. as part of the notion that in addition to having elections, which is obviously a critical piece of democracy, and that is the work that iri does so well lately, it is also the other building blocks. the thing i'm most proud of in the thing we have done in the last couple of years is to strengthen the tissue that makes this -- makes these issues more central to what the state department does. so we are working. there are challenges but with nea, there is a lot of times when we are working hand-in-hand on a shared agenda that says this is really enough content not a policy of the united states, to be smart and effective as the secretary said, to have strong strategy in the national interest. human rights is a piece of the events. >> integrated with congress in a different way than what it once was, this gets back to american

political year. it is an election year. that is like a test case, isn't? what people are willing to stomach. and whether we care. we have people telling candidates whether they care this moment. millions in north korea starving everyday. maybe we can do anything, but we don't talk about it. i remember that massacre and i remember that i -- the media did not do enough there. we tend to do things that are not visual. so many people said oh, my god, this is an atrocity. my question for all of you, especially those of you in congress, is how do you do your side of this job when your job has to do with political will?

>> well, i think that for those of us who have been doing this for a while, we have seen the evolution that mike has talked about for this office. the role that it plays in the extent to which it is increasingly integrated into the work of the department as a whole, and i think from our point of view, these are issues that are, i think, deeply important to members on both sides. we work very closely together. we have for many years. we have seen the role of this office as being critical to the success of democratic institutions around the world, human rights, particularly, and, you know, we know that it is a

difficult, often, as paul described, messy profit, finding consistency is not always easy in what we do. but i think that when it comes to the work of this office and the role that it plays and the issues that it seeks to either promote or defend, there is considerable political will and supported and a desire to ensure that this office has the capacity to really fulfill its responsibilities. it has not always been this way. there have been times when it has been kind of a backwater without any real budget, often ignored. but i don't think that is the case today, and it has been a process over the years, and certainly, i think, the fact that paul and i are here together, we work very closely on these issues. we see them as fundamental.

this is an office that we want to ensure has the resources necessary to do its job. >> go-ahead. >> i just want to wake one observation. in one way that relationships can be improved is the president includes, in his request, sufficient funding for those issues that both the executive branch and congress find important. and i think once we get to that point where a request comes up and progress is endorsing it and not that congress is putting something in that general conversation, it is going about what is needed, it is an indication of a good balance that we are talking about here. >> you wanted to address system and i did want to ask you about this. we are in a moment where we had a terrible unemployment crisis. people talk. they don't really want to hear

about the middle east right now. they want to hear about jobs. you know? >> exactly. >> i'm going to let you talk about that. >> you are exactly right. it is a tough environment in which to make the case for funding this kind of work. but i think, tim and paul have made an important point, that budget is important. it is meaningful. it is meaningful as a signal to the girl chrissie, it is also meaningful and practice and, you know, the fact that the earl has a programming office and programming capacity that has only become more robust and sophisticated over time, i think it has been a factor in helping integrate this into the department. he can firmer regional bureau perspective, where anyone was fortunate enough to have an office and budget devoted to advancing political and economic reform in our region, but when you tell embassies, not only am

i going to kind of whack my finger about making sure that these issues are in your talking points, but i'm going to be doing things in your country. that, all of a sudden, changes the nature of the conversation, and it also means that the embassy starts to think about what can this money do for me. it gives them a stake in the work of democracy and human rights promotion that they didn't necessarily have before. what i saw as a scholar on attracting this from the establishment in december 2002, through the course of the bush administration, was how the existence of the political reform programming office in the nea change the incentive to report diplomats and nea who are working on the issues. all of a sudden they started to think, what could i do in my country to get some of this money and then i get credit for getting the money and i get evaluated on the basis of that. more broadly, though, to get

through the transformation of u.s. diplomacy. the fact that diplomats all around the world are not just talking and not just writing reports, they are doing things and all kinds of ways. the democracy and human rights program is just one arm of what secretary rice called transformational diplomacy and what secretary clinton called smart power. we are just doing that everywhere. >> go ahead. >> the list of auspice is that you ran off. i don't think that's the only one i can remember that was created within the executive by the executive was that the tro would not exist had it not been -- trafficking, religious and lysenkoism, i used to think that i had great portrait of a third guy in the room talking about human rights after the president and the secretary of state. they were the chair and vice chair of the vice board of

directors. i always from over what i was told coming in here, was that someone told me that the hill will be best friends. >> the hill will be her best friend? >> the hill, and our democracy, reflects the thoughts and desires of the american people. very well. i always thought the huge amount of bipartisan support on capitol hill on these issues. >> by that you have, that is very good. we are told that deputy burns is still delayed at the white house. we are going to wrap this up. it is five minutes until he arrives? we have five minutes. all right. we will get around to a couple more hotseat questions and then we will wrap it up. i just want to get back to where we are today. whether it is egypt, whether it is tunisia, which maybe shows more promise, particularly we are talking about the error spring right now. libya, i could go on and on.

saudi arabia, which did not allow an honoree to attend this week and they threatened the custody of her son and she attended. we cannot talk about the complicated relationship. i found pretty it pretty interesting than an honoree was not allowed to attend at the kennedy center and is a woman who drove her car on youtube. that is all she did. she drove -- she put it on youtube. saudi arabia did not allow her to wait. she also invited her friend to our event and she could not come for similar reasons. this time they threatened her son. i guess, what i am going to say -- i'm going to the dark place, the news out of russia, vladimir putin. this is a marvelous -- trl is a wonderful thing. have we come very far? what have we done wrong? is there anything you would ask

either congress or the public? what can be done differently when we face what we're facing today. the news is quite grim. >> go ahead, mike. [laughter] [applause] >> you your turn. >> what i say? >> i take an optimistic view. i worked in the field for a lot of years. it makes me a chronic optimist. i do actually believe that not only is congress our or friend, but the public is also her friend. the ngo community, so many represented here, represents the true heart of the american people. these are issues that matter to americans and matter deeply. there is a bipartisan consensus around these issues because these issues for flickr history and who we are as a people. the world is always going to be a complicated and messy place. it is also a place that is capable of change. again, going back to these views

that were mentioned, if you look over latin america was in the 70s, there were almost military governments. today there are very few military governments. if you look at the nations of eastern europe and the soviet union in the 1980s, there was the sense that it would never change. the change. if you look at south africa. he looked what happened in northern ireland. we are now -- this panel end-users are really doing with the places that seem the most retractable. countries in the middle east, countries in asia. were you have not had a tradition of dissent and civil society and you haven't had the same notions of free press. where women have been held down for decades and centuries. we are now in the process in the early stage of trying to figure out how things change. change is a messy business and not a linear process. we cannot force it to happen, but we can help empower people

change. that is the message of this day. it is the message. we can't do it alone. we are not always going to be the most popular people. but it is getting better. and there's a lot of allies around, including bill burns and the secretary who made it clear that these are priorities to them. these are issues that all of us have to keep working. we won't succeed if they don't keep pushing us to do the right thing. >> lorne come you have something you wanted to say. >> just as mike said, brinkley, many years ago you would not have heard about these issues for the standards have gone up. it is also important that it is our country and not ours, and it is their fight and not ours. we are down to the very difficult countries, the iran's

the china's, that we hope will turn out better and it will take a while. as difficult as it is to see images on tv. >> we will not see them to were not see them. there is a reason that this is called democracy and human rights. while you are working to help those inside who want to change the structure and make it into a democracy. you are working to help those who are being penalized by the fact that it is not a democracy, given the human rights war as well. that is why this is so important. to make sure. i often say that nobody cared who i was -- my poster or whoever. we have this title then we have the weight of the united states government. to bring to bear all of our problems, that means a lot to a lot of people around the world. >> thank you. did you want to say anything? >> i think you did, didn't you?

>> i am told that we should be going to secretary burns? isn't he on his way? he is close, right? he is very close. i could go on and on. do whatever you want. i'm just going to keep talking. i have a lot to say. i'm going to give my trouble again. it is a lot of fun. this is what you get for asking me to do all of this. actually, i want to go back to tomorrow because it was unclear to me. with regard to the arab spring, which is so the forefront of today's news, i don't know you addressed the cultural issue as much. what your role at the savon center is, it seems to me that because you are not of the state department, you might have a more vigorous approach to cultural issues. some of these arab countries. couldn't you? >> well, i think it is important

to distinguish that there are a lot of things that over the years have been called cultural issues that are not human rights issues. >> right. >> global norms have shifted. we have talked about that. i think that expectations in these countries have shifted. i think that we also have a lot more data about the relationship between human rights and development outcomes. we have a lot more data about the relationship between democracy and political participation and development outcomes. those making the argument that on the basis of cultural specificity or on the basis of religious traditions, that certain rights are less important or don't apply. i think have a very shaky ground to stand on, increasingly shaky ground. going back to the comment made earlier about arab exceptionalism, it was only the latest in a long strain of

exceptionalism. we used to have debates in the economy in the policy world whether the catholic countries of latin america were culturally resistant to democracy. we used to have the same arguments about asia as we noted. i think that we really need to set aside the notion that this is about culture. and we need to embrace the fact that these human rights are universal norms. and i think one of the things that we work hard to do in the administration while he was here and that i would give mike and secretary clinton a lot of credit for, is standing on the universality of these principles. and not making it about us or american tradition, but it is about these norms. >> i'm told some and i'm going to have you introduced him, deputy burns has now arrived. thank heavens. [applause]

[applause] app. >> first of all, i want to thank all the panelists for the whole day. it has been fantastic. to bring us home, we have bill burns who is a fantastic leader. he is a diplomat who is principled and practical and has been a huge supporter of the work that we are doing. i am delighted to introduce bill burns. [applause] [applause] [applause] [laughter] >> thank you very much. thank you, mike. it is a pleasure for me to join all of you. i want to thank mike for organizing this. a very important look back at this transformational period. at a moment when our values and interests are so deeply entwined, i want to thank my

poster and all of his colleagues and drl for your server principal contribution to u.s. national security and human dignity throughout the world. under mike's leadership, drl has defined and redefined for human rights agenda for the 21st century. i also want to thank our panelists for their unique perspectives on the evolution of human rights policies. over the past 30 years, i have had the privilege of working with virtually every panelist over the course of today. tom pickering, tex harris, many other remarkable printer cartridge i noticed much easier to reflect from the safe vantage point of hindsight. upon issues that caused gray hairs and sleepless nights. all of us are grateful for your service, your sacrifice and your superb contributions to the cause of universal human rights. all of us also believe that america is best off in the world

of successful and stable nations where individual rights are respected. we know that ideals and interests don't always mesh as seamlessly as we might like. for the tough cases, it takes judgment, persistence, and an ability to see the forest in and the trees to move the policy forward. each of you paste decisions like this and leave our world what your place. by the time i joined the foreign service in 1982, drl was established on the seventh floor for the cold war dominated u.s. global security interests, including authoritarian regimes that were critical u.s. partners. it was argued that if the united states was to be credible in denouncing human rights violators, we had to call out

anti-communist dictators as well. it meant speaking out about the best of pinochet and daniel ortega. it was an important attempt to put us on the right side of history. only a couple of decades, most people in the americas we've under leaders they elect it. which has increased respect for populations to long overlooked the middle class that numbers 275 million. drl reports on the status of human rights, 199 countries and territories, but the goal is not to chastise. it is to change behavior. during the clinton administration from the established human rights dialogue was with china. we hold these dialogues with many countries, of which we have important relationships, but the differences on issues of rights and freedoms, such as russia and vietnam. as well as with countries whose views on these issues are closer to her own like colombia and mexico. we had frank conversations grounded in our principles and

we held elements within governments put in place better practices solve problems within their own societies, and become more accountable and more open to their citizens. thanks to drl from, a surprising number of these difficult but essential conversations delivered results. in 1998, drl began funding programs to help human rights activists come including journalists, women and other vulnerable groups, improve their own advocacy and reach, after 9/11, when our government recognized the conflict and stability of terrorism one in many ways, the byproducts of the failures of authoritarian states to modernize advance human dignity. these efforts also gave rise to the middle east partnership initiative. founded in 2002 to strengthen civil society and the rule of law, and empower them and improve and expand education and encourage economic reform and increased political participation. globally, drl has turned her

aspirations interaction. to drl has assisted more than 1000 print media and online journalists. in the philippines, drl went on to produce reports about human trafficking and summary executions. in pakistan, they launched the first women's radio program, focusing on gender issues. and other countries first nongovernmental radio stations on the air. one of my favorite drl war stories is how the individual running the global programming office and drl, help to get the first independent printing press in 2003. at the time from the country's only printing press was owned by then-president [inaudible name] family. lorne managed to set up board of directors, buy a printing press,

and launch it with fanfare that it was actually able to report the news. seven years later, it was witnessed the democratic center of power in central asia. i'm not suggesting that one printing press turned the tide of history. it is often the case, we can never precisely measure the impact of u.s. engagement. but here is what we do now. when we work to put ourselves on the right side of history, when we support citizens working to resolve conflict easily come to bring change to their societies and to create economic opportunities, and to claim universal rights, we enhance our country's interests and our country's security. we enhance our country's leadership and we reflect the values and the generous spirit of the american people. i have had the great honor and privilege of serving in government during the fall of the berlin wall, the uprisings of tunis and the new opening in burma. the changes that have swept the world from cairo to seoul to

sudan, not as in the past two years come but in the past 20 years. maybe about ideals we hold dear, and may have had our support. in the end, they are not about us. they are about thousands of individual decisions made by the citizens in government and sovereign nations. they are about the thirst of dignity and proud people of every corner of the world. they are about fundamental truths and universal human aspirations from which no society and no region is immune. we rightly approach our engagement with a large dose of humility, and yet, looking back on the decades of drl, a time when wave after wave democracy has moved forward, and in africa and the middle east, it is clear that the world is a better place today. because you took the long walk of american foreign policy and vented towards justice. drl has lived by the model don't make a point, make a difference. when we look back at the story of american diplomacy is clear

what a difference you have made. you help us to be the nation we aspire to be. and you told us exercise leadership in a more peaceful and more secure world. our work is far from done, and with the growing voice of civil society around the world, we need drl more than ever. or misunderstand the tough work ahead. from stopping the horrific shelling in syria to abuse of lbgt persons around the world. from standing up against honor killing and forced labor, nurturing new democracies to making sure that while the government may throw prisoners in jail, no government can make the world forget about them. fortunately, we have one of the most passionate advocates i know as our secretary of state. through her words and her deeds, secretary clinton has used her unique stature from her frankness and courage and her conscience, to fight for and win a place on the world stage for

so many who have been delegated to the shadows. for women to lg -- lbgt. by helping so many people to live up to their god-given potential. she has helped with this department and country come as she's helping us live up to our potential. we look forward to continuing down the road of history with all of you. thank you very much and keep up the great work. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you, bill, thank you and thank you all for being here. have a great weekend. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> up next, a conference looks at housing issues facing veterans. a discussion on global hiv and aids treatment and prevention.

>> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will focus on the supreme court's decision on arizona's immigration law. artists include wall street journalist correspondent and an arizona republican. and a democrat from texas. we will also look at the fiscal health of states, with the national association of state budget officers. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> next from a conversation about veterans housing issue is. johnny isakson talks about a proposal for getting rid of home mortgage companies fannie mae and freddie mac. from the national housing conference, this is one hour. >> those that are designing seats, don't be shy.

some of the best seats are up front. good morning. all right, good morning -- very good. i am ethan handelman come i'm the vice president for policy with the national housing conference. on behalf of nhc want to welcome you to her in a annual policy program. for those of you not familiar with nhc, we are a national nonprofit that brings together a wide range of stakeholders for profit, nonprofit, public sector, private sector from all around the country are it around a common goal of making sure that all in america have access to decent and a portable

housing. decent and affordable housing. i want to thank the home depot foundation, who is not only the sponsor of this morning's event, but was one of our honorees from last night person of the year gala. i see frederick there if you want to raise your hand. say hello to everyone. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> i want to thank -- give a special thing to the nhc board policy committee, and our many partners in the housing and veteran affairs world's who had with their support and advice, help to make today come about. we are very grateful for all of that, and hopeful for the strong partnerships that are being forged to address the housing needs of those who have served. because today really is about our veterans and their housing needs.

as those who have served come home, they are facing some of the same housing challenges that all in america face. some of them face for me to essential homeworkers make it acceptable. some are simply struggling to find an affordable rental home in a good neighborhood. others have underwater mortgages. some are homeless and will need a lot of ongoing help and support to get back on their feet. nhc in the center aim to empower the housing community to join with the veterans community to meet these challenges. by creating space for discussion might today, by identifying solutions, and developing new policy responses. after today, you should look for ongoing engagement. there is a fact sheet in your packet is one of the first pieces in the center for housing policy this year. there will be housing policy and

practice guide coming from nhc this summer. you will see veterans organizations and an ongoing engagement with veterans housing organizations. veterans are an important our goal is to support the many groups with a long-standing commitment and extensive expertise we can share our strength. because truly we are stronger together to meet these challenges you have an agenda in your packet and you also have speaker biographies. my introductions will be brief. we are going to start with deputy scott gould. he is a veteran of the u.s. navy. i would invite him up to speed.

with welcome and thanks. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] good morning, everybody. are there a lot of great people coming in. senator isakson coming in at the door. i apologize for being a couple minutes late. even, thank you for that mercifully short introduction. senator isakson, i am am privileged to share events with the events of you. i thank you for your staunch advocacy for america's veterans. mark johnston, my colleague in the front row, it's good to see you again. let me take a moment to greet members of the veterans rental housing panel. we have president of the national alliance to end homelessness. john driscoll, president of the national coalition for homeless veterans. patrick sheridan, senior vp of

real estate development, volunteers of america, and of course, rosanne haggerty, president of the community solutions. i want to thank the housing conference for inviting me to the discussion today about quality of portal housing for america's veterans. the efforts being taken to address a related challenge, which is homelessness itself. for again on behalf of secretary -- secretary shinseki you, i want to congratulate the nominees for two minutes achieving milestones. they are the home depot foundation, operation homefront, volunteers of america, corporate development, and u.s. vets. kelly are eager? great. terrific. jim knotts, where are you? michael king.

this is wonderful. they boil down to people with an insight and passion to doing this work and we appreciate all that you do for america's veterans. we all know there is a lot that happens in the world that we can't control. we can't prevent extreme weather. for example, or stall an earthquake. i think in some cases, even fix the european sovereign debt crisis. when it comes to housing, here at home, when it comes to homeless and hungry, living on our streets, believe that we can exert an element of control and we can be changed. we only need look to the advocacy of the national housing conference. and an array of like-minded organizations whose work across the crease to the basic american need of affordable housing, whether it is urban or suburban, ex- urban or rural, the portal

housing supports strong communities, building communities we live in. it strengthens our nation's quality of life. and it improves local, regional and national economic health. the virginia is doing its part in that mix. in this slowly recovering economy, what is a still fragile market, we get it and understand it. the virginia offers veterans the only zero down payment home mortgage plan in america. today, there are over 1.8 million americans living in a home purchase where it was done with a virginia loan. we maintain the lowest foreclosure rate of any financial institution in the country. even so, tough times have demanded tough action. in 2010, we were able to help 66,000 veterans avoid foreclosure on their virginia home loans. the next year, in 2011, we increased the number of saves,

as we call them, to 73,000. that increased the number of veterans that were in default not losing their homes. in the past three years from the virginia has stepped in to protect and prevent more than 176,000 veterans and for closure. we will continue to press hard into support of every veteran pursuing the american dream and will help every single veteran who is struggling to keep that dream alive. the bottom line is the veterans can buy homes when they can't keep homes. if they don't have a job. facing top of obstacles. the worst recovery since the great depression, unemployment rates improving, but not as fast as we would like. stiff job competition across the board. frankly, we are worried. we have folks that looked to veterans and to them and then interviewed concept. they are wondering whether they

have every monahans. we want to assure them that they do not. our reach extends to other critical aspects of postal service way. education, employment, they are very hyper energy issues. they attribute to our economic well-being. today we have over 400,000 young veterans in college on something called in and g.i. bill. do we have any one old enough to have been in the and g.i. bill? remark great. my dad was there. i am told that none of that money went to buy cold beer as an undergraduate. congress said we are going to do this again. the most successful social program in the country's history returns seven to $8 for every 1 dollar spent. we are doing it again for a new generation of afghan and iraqi deaths. we are looking up the older

veterans is welcome in partnership with the department of labor, we recently launched the veterans retraining assistance program and it is referred to as vrap to unemployed veterans between the ages of 35 and six years old. if we combine all of the virginia's other educational programs, we have more than 920,000 veterans and their family members enrolled in some kind of virginia sponsored college certificate or training program last year, and i say some family members because if you have been in service for the requisite period of time, after 9/11, and you have a child that you need to put through college, you can transfer that benefit to him or her. the 30 or $40,000 per year over the four-year period goes to that child. in one way we want to see the veteran back, but that is their heart and conscience telling them where the money will go. so we have some youngsters who are enjoying this benefit as well. our goal is straightforward, as

president obama has said, veterans are crucial to our economy and we need to find new jobs. we are exerting a full-court press to do this that. this past january come here in washington dc, we have an event where we had 4100 jobs available in a single place. the washington convention center. that is 4100 jobs, and companies there, 4100 jobs they wanted to have filled, they interviewed 2600 interviews on the spot. it made 500 offers in the 2.5 day. period event. that is six times the level of acceptance in the normal civilian job fair. next week, in detroit, michigan, we are going to take that model to expand it. we have 24,000 jobs available in detroit, next tuesday and thursday at the cobo center. not only have we combined

coaching, resume building and the like, but we have also brought in 500 decision makers -- 500 from 16 different agencies across the government, who are the buyers. you're not talking to the small disadvantaged business unit expert. you are talking to the person who says i need a product or service you may have and i'm here with the capacity to be to engage in a competitive process rapidly and to be able to make that connection. a third aspect is that we brought all of our services together. one big horseshoe table. if you have have a medical issue that you need evaluated, literally, private exam rooms, we will go back and pull the records. you might be missing this or that or your eligibility for a long crackdown or something like that -- you can do the one-stop shopping and get to the end of that where everything is certainly in line with we have to offer. another thing struck at the washington conference center several months ago, youngster came in off the street, a

veteran. he had his id and had been trigger pull. if you will forgive the colloquial expression. he had been on the front line of afghanistan. the guy came up in a t-shirt and jeans and he said i'm here to interview for my job. in that one interaction, i realized again how much work we have to do to make sure that people are job ready. if they don't have a resume, they don't understand how the process went. they graduated from high school, right into the service, spent four years there. living in a ditch or 10 overseas for it four years later, at age 22 years old come you bring them back into washington dc with the traffic and lives and how are you going to do the job. we have really retrenched undefined our employment programs around veterans talking to veterans, walking them

through the process. let me translate your skills into civilian speak. let me help you the job process and let me get you set up. let's bring employers want to hire, next week is bringing 500 jobs. the jobs are good ones, ranging from blue collar to white collar. we have the automotive companies there. it is really quite an event. please do take note of that. we will be joined out there with representatives from the first ladies joining forces initiative. we have the u.s. chamber of commerce there. hiring our heroes program. we actually only pay 25% of the bills to put on the jobs conference. so the private sector is picking up the other 75%, it is a great example of leveraging. we of course have hiring managers from the federal government running 4000 jobs to the site with a veteran's preference, which means it can go in and hire them very

quickly. we will all be on site. it is going to be a heck of a three-day period. simultaneously, we are working to make sure that this open house that i mentioned is providing a full service experience. do you all remember the movie fourth of july? born on the fourth of july? a long time ago. it spoke to an era where you could not go to the virginia and expect to have really good service. it is a different virginia. it is in the top performers in the health care health care system. we are the largest health care system and the second-largest in the world. in the '90s, they shifted to an evolving style, as you know, managers and leaders, it was very quantitative with outcome oriented quality in health care. we have a very different that we are bringing to the table and offering health care to our veterans. we all know that for a lot of americans, many come and go from

home to homeless. it is a slippery slope. even those that are highly disciplined and motivated, they go from bleeding edge performance in special operations at the tip of the spear to a year later being homeless. what is wrong with that picture? how do we fill them? highly disappointed and motivated. they have that can-do spirit somewhere in there. we just have to reach in and get it back. yet, when they return home, a small but significant percentage of them end up homeless. they sever depression. substance abuse. the percentage of joblessness from all the factors that contribute to homelessness in this country come the world's richest country on any given night, tens of thousands of veterans are sleeping on the streets. we see an inherent in washington dc. i know that i do when i go out in the winter to perform the point in time.

wordsworth once said homeless near thousand homes eyster, near a thousand tables kind and wanted for food. the va has taken the challenge and then started at the top. nearly two years ago, president obama told we won't be satisfied until every veteran who has fought for america has a home in america. under my bosses leadership, secretary some set an ambitious crazy goal. a wildly out of bounds goal in washington dc. we said we would end veterans homelessness by 2015. now, for those of you who haven't lived in washington for a while camino but this is a

measurable outcome and you have time phased it. it would be so easy to say it is an aspiration an aspiration or something reported were going to do in the future. the president and secretary are going to end it. that is just three years from now. we are holding ourselves accountable for moving down that line to the number zero. the president and the congress have stepped forward. they are trying to get the job done. we had $376 million for rescue. the va has billions of dollars that are put into prevention and health care side, the rescue was underfunded. we moved to a billion dollars in 2012. the 2013 budget request is for $1.3 billion. but we know that that commitment and compassion are not measured in terms of the dollars of the system. i just offered as a way to give evidence of commitment. it is not the same thing as results. here are the results that we have so far. in 2009 from the estimated

number of homeless veterans is something around 107,000. by 2011 from the number was down to 67,000. what we believe will be announced later this year is account the text is below 60,000. that will keep us on track for the next data point goal of 35,000 by the end of 2013, as we work to end the rescue phase of homelessness in 2015 on target. nowcommanding veterans homelessness has many factors. it is literally a test of all that the va has to offer. our housing benefits, as i have tried to offer over the last two minutes. our challenge is to rescue the veteran for dirty homeless. it makes no sense to let it

happen. we have to prevent those at risk for homelessness sliding down the slippery slope that i mentioned. what we are trying to do is leverage every weapon that we have in our arsenal. here are some of the programs that the va has pacific we in housing. we have a grant program that helps provide over 14,700 transitional housing services through partnerships with 600 community-based projects nationwide. ..

>> it moves homeless veterans and families into permanent housing quickly. said provided section 8 vouchers to allow call was veterans to rent private housing. we wraparound that individual into a home. the support services to keep them there. since 200,837,500 vouchers

have been available at the annual cost of $75 million. 36,000 are in use. 5,000 veterans have the voucher waiting to find the house. and the president's budget request there is additional 75 million another batch of vouchers. it was recently announced a may 10,000 more available bringing the total up at 48,000. we will ramp up of this incredibly powerful tool we have. we're grateful to head. when they make that statement to help bring the home was down. also leveraging technology to better resources.

we had an announcement with jon bon jovi. the did the secretary of hud and i were on stage announcing the winners of the competition. do you have a smart phone? or the application for starbucks? we have the idea where did you were standing on the corner and saw somebody who was homeless and you could enter the location to tell them the nearest hot meal and medical attention and the bet? we had no money to do that but we created a nationwide competition. we said we would give you $10,000.

we do charge money for the stuff we used to develop. what would it cost? hundreds of thousands of dollars. five teams developed five applications that met criteria in three weeks. one was two guys and a mcdonald's before they left for a camping trip. [laughter] they were competing. there obeah grand prize winner that get $25,000 but the wonderful contribution of jon bonne joe b. we could create something extraordinary. on the government side we had to put the date outside to describe the interface

standards but it is the public data so make it available. now the application developers could do that the old irish proverb it is in the shelter of each other that people live. that frames the operating paradigm with homelessness. i can talk about what the d.a. has done but i have no allusion how would is getting sold. national and community associations and faith based groups like might church. we share and a common

purpose and a former defenders third given a basic need of shelter and safety. and did no one agency can do that or private sector organization can do about partnerships are essentials to achieve results in the 21st century. look at the housing he rose rose -- let me extend my a congratulations to the honor rationed -- honorees as we

are here to talk about that 80 for the opportunity to speak to you today. [applause] >> thank you deputy secretary it is the pleasure to have the the a here to demonstrate a strong partnership with hud and us with the challenges we face now i can introduce senator isakson from georgia been in the senate since 2004 a vocal champion of housing nothing substitutes for listening to the man himself. thank you senator. [applause] >> is an honor to be here

today and to focus on the issue that is dear to my heart. i was selling residential houses working with veterans and i made a virginia home sales so it means all lot to me but also to pay tribute to the home date -- depuff foundation that commitment to housing is unparalleled. the first lady is here today the first lady of home depot bolsa of habitat for humanity but home depot is a company to meet the responsibility raw have to

our veterans to make an investment when the employees are called up and take care of the family at home they deserve the commendation they're getting. you deserve the wreckage is in -- recognition you received last night. >> [inaudible] and she is also easy on the i's. [laughter] very good to see you. [laughter] [applause] secretary scott gould said two things. what he said it is key for the housing problem. one is jobs.

jobs solve a lot of problems you can make your monthly payment and his job one but he mentioned the word partners i cannot think of a better word to describe how to turn around the housing market think about working together. the the a has then a wonderful job reaching out to make that transition and those who have the loans i know from being in the business know lender wants to foreclose on anybody. houses the tear eight their

right then down and don't think about them and they want people to stay in the house. is there a way to work out? but they are doing a phenomenal job to work with a lender the foreclosure rate to is lower than the other type of loan and the turnaround is greater. there within the margins because they keep them in the home and they see to it the bettering gets the services. we have the same level of relationship we would have lot less problems today.

partnership is key. it is how you get unemployment down. do not fully yourself but the sustained and employ a rage is lack of housing construction and development. i tried to propose a solution aside from fha and virginia the principal source of mortgage money was fannie mae and freddie mac when they came under tremendous pressure with the subprime crisis fannie and freddie went under dress with the wounded brand ballonet conservatorship

they're not the agency they need to be. something has to replace fannie and freddie. with their is nothing to back them up. after the depression phoenix got out of the business to make the home loans. after the 1986 tax act to they went under. we'll replace them? freddie mac fannie mae leave there is nothing left. so i went to bring my recommendation to improve home sales and access affordability to all americans. yes they made a bad mistake that was forced by congress.

they said get about 13% of its paper but wall street decided to the subprime borrowers and then they started to default and the guarantees were called. they lost $171 billion. may can never correct but the mortgage finance agency based themselves out over a tenure period of time. put fannie and freddie into receivership open the mortgage finance agency of qualified residential mortgage. the recession that began was

not of over lending but under underwriting. people were not prepared. then we had a crescendo of difficulties. you must have of 5% down payment and supplemental insurance between 50 and 70% so half of the obligation is insured when you make the loan. the bar were harassed to have the income. and a credit report and the appraisal comment title insurance to search the title, going back to the old fashioned days of putting money down, having a job, a good credit. that way they will not be

foreclosed. one of the requirements is to have a 10 year plan to privatize that is possible the same way of catastrophic insurance to take the guarantee fees put them into the catastrophic pool and that is the first backstop. that is the brief description to take us where we are now to where we need to be. but it passed to the transitional. i will create an agency to give us more liquidity to residential lending in america. my time is up.

i can take a question end all wars sit down and shot up. >> >> [inaudible] how was that going you have been a gauge to get the is administration to go from 5% up by 20%. >> i appreciate your commitment government is doing what it always does the problem is here the pendulum goes over here. committee made their rule the qualified residential mortgage means you have to put down 20% less than that lender past have 5% risk

retention. talk about no mortgage money that brought about the creation of the way to go about the business. fortunately they pulled it back now they don't have a comment period in the war but it sits in limbo. i save you run into new ready at fdic somebody is talking about having a compound dain defect four years to come. quality means underwriting. not necessarily down payment.

84 having me and congratulations on your great conference. [applause] >> >> thank you senator isakson reform is what we have been working on for several years and we appreciate your focus which is essential. is my a pleasure to introduce the acting secretary for the department of housing and urban development. he had a long history of service particularly as the deputy assistant secretary for a special needs. he knows the area very well i'd like to welcome him appear.

[applause] >> good morning. great to be here. i was impressed with the remarks i had a chance to work with secretary gould working with homelessness of veterans by 2015. he is very hands-on setting the coal and trying to get their every way possible also quite impressed with the knowledge of our senator and also those the national housing conference for holding this symposia and what will come after also with homelessness. i want to talk about two different topics.

i am choosing to better at the opposite end of the spectrum. home ownership and home of -- homelessness. but to focus on the servicing agreement you may not know the details a settlement between federal agencies and state partners that resulted in $25 billion of relief because of unfair lending practices around loan servicing but the vast majority goes to homeowners. many were veterans. a lot to highlight the nassetta are relevant i have four or five to share.

the first this payment of lost equity. full refunds who were charged excessive interest. waivers are being provided to those who had to sell their homes after a loss. i see this all the time with families have vain to relocate to having no idea that would have been and they just purchased their home. there are others the foreclosure protections that have received hostile fire and danger pay even after the foreclosure notice. some go to service members and veterans.

now their major of my time i would like to talk about the other end of the spectrum predicted it is a shame for men and women to risk their lives for us to come home to literally not have a home and live in their cars. that is why secretary donovan has been our inform with secretary shinseki to end homelessness by 2015. when i was listening to deputy secretary gould i am familiar with the interventions. hud has interventions also. there is no single solutions cahal.

one of the things that does matter i have seen between the hud and the the a what i have seen has been phenomenal with great man gauge meant of this housing program reignited as a program thinks to senator murray and i had us chance by a half helped to create hud/bash trying to solve homelessness. it was a fantastic success. there are few examples i have never seen where two agencies work together well

to code mr. a single program. it is not easy to do. one entity may not be good everything. but today to there are 40,000 vouchers and it makes a huge difference because the vast majority goes to those who are chronically homeless for extended period of time and without a permanent solution will never get off the street and cost exorbitant amount of funds. it cost about $50,000 to do nothing because they bounce around from hospitals and

jails then they are still out there so the country incurs exorbitant cost to lead to the failure continue as opposed to providing a real solution to end at person's problem. it is important to focus on people who are homeless and the senate provided leadership to say what can we learn to those who want -- tour learning from the war? a different site for a different military deferments sites that have large numbers and it is a

tough thing we learned to prevent homelessness and who is an imminent risk? we hope to learn more. we are halfway through. also the homelessness prevention and rapid recovery program. it tries homelessness prevention and also rapid rehousing is the concept is somebody is homeless immediately stop to move them into their own apartment minimal services, see how this works. it has been going on nearly three years.

city after city find 90% did not fall back once they got the short term assistance. it is not expensive or take a lot of services but seems to have great success. we need to think creatively because budgets are tight. we have been flat funded three years in a row. we have to dig deeper how do we end homelessness overall? if we don't have new resources? doing things about how zero using the hud/bash in a smart way and